SELFDOUBT: Uncertainty Quantification for Reasoning LLMs via the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio

Uncertainty estimation is critical for deploying reasoning language models, yet remains poorly understood under extended chain-of-thought reasoning. We study parallel sampling as a fully black-box approach using verbalized confidence and self-consistency. Across three reasoning models and 17 tasks spanning mathematics, STEM, and humanities, we characterize how these signals scale. Both self-consistency and verbalized confidence scale in reasoning models, but self-consistency exhibits lower initial discrimination and lags behind verbalized confidence under moderate sampling. Most uncertainty gains, however, arise from signal combination: with just two samples, a hybrid estimator improves AUROC by up to $+12$ on average and already outperforms either signal alone even when scaled to much larger budgets, after which returns diminish. These effects are domain-dependent: in mathematics, the native domain of RLVR-style post-training, reasoning models achieve higher uncertainty quality and exhibit both stronger complementarity and faster scaling than in STEM or humanities.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings where reliable uncertainty quantification (UQ) is as important as predictive accuracy. Extended reasoning via chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting or reasoning-trained models has become ubiquitous in modern VLM pipelines, yet its effect on UQ reliability remains poorly understood. Our results show that reasoning tends to degrade the quality of many uncertainty estimates, even when it improves task accuracy. We identify implicit answer conditioning as the primary mechanism: as reasoning traces converge on a conclusion before the final answer is generated, token probabilities increasingly reflect consistency with the model's own reasoning trace rather than uncertainty about correctness. In effect, the model becomes overconfident in its answer. In contrast, agreement-based consistency remains robust and often improves under reasoning, making it a practical choice for uncertainty estimation in reasoning-enabled VLMs.

As the chain-of-thought reasoning capabilities of large language models improve, evaluating and calibrating their reasoning confidence is becoming increasingly important for quantifying the uncertainty of their answers. Current methods for estimating the confidence of large language models are generally based on probabilities of selected key tokens, but the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Our pilot study finds that replacing selected token probabilities with coarse substitutes can also improve calibration, motivating us to further explore effective signals of model confidence. We introduce Divergent Token Confidence (DTC), a framework that estimates confidence by counting tokens at which two models strongly disagree during decoding. DTC identifies these divergent tokens using the Jensen-Shannon divergence between next-token distributions evaluated along the same reasoning trajectory. We find that their count is almost negatively associated with answer accuracy, thereby serving as a simple yet effective signal for uncertainty quantification. DTC supports both white-box and black-box evaluation using auxiliary models, without explicit training and affecting the generation process. Experiments across multiple model families and six mathematical benchmarks demonstrate improved calibration over probability-based and verbalized baselines. Under white-box evaluation, the count-only estimator achieves an average expected calibration error of 13.0%, compared with 32.7%-42.4% for standard full-sequence confidence methods. In black-box settings, it also improves calibration over the original verbalized scores. For example, mean expected calibration error falls from 32.1%-40.2% to 13.7%-16.3% on DeepSeek-V3.2. These findings provide new insights for improving reasoning uncertainty quantification in large language models. The code is released at https://github.com/szu-tera/DTC.git.